Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

threader.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 698 posts

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#151

Post by cptskippy »

ArmandGrillet wrote: post #36

I want Stadia. I've read reviews yesterday and was amazed by the lack of a long term vision from the reviewers. If Google doesn't drop the ball (which is a huge if knowing the company's history), Stadia makes a lot of sense. I want to play Red Dead Redemption 2, the cheapest way to do that as I don't have a console nor an expensive computer is Stadia. And when I will want to play Cyberpunk 2077, Stadia will be the ch…

> I've read reviews yesterday and was amazed by the lack of a long term vision from the reviewers.

Maybe it's because most reviewer are jaded because it's industry standard for gaming companies to promise the world and deliver on only a small part of that.

In general when a gaming company says "and we're going to do..." that's generally qualified with "if there's enough user adoption and demand".

To believe in Stadia, you have to trust Google will deliver on promised features, trust that Google will convince publishers to develop for it's platform, and trust your internet connection. Google really only has control over one of those things.

Also, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T are holding a grudge after Google Fiber and might take steps to degrade the Stadia experience as a little fk you to Google.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#152

Post by honestoHeminway »

bobviolier wrote: post #54
ArmandGrillet wrote: post #36

I want Stadia. I've read reviews yesterday and was amazed by the lack of a long term vision from the reviewers. If Google doesn't drop the ball (which is a huge if knowing the company's history), Stadia makes a lot of sense. I want to play Red Dead Redemption 2, the cheapest way to do that as I don't have a console nor an expensive computer is Stadia. And when I will want to play Cyberpunk 2077, Stadia will be the ch…

Yeah this ^ I guess Google did an MVP and everybody is expecting it to be a fully-fledged offering already. That might have been due to Google promoting it as such of course (and asking the price for it). What I also see happening is that as soon as they have a free tier, people are gonna try to play a game for 5 minutes because they saw something on Youtube or somewhere else and then 1 in X will just buy the game on…

Why do you need to buy, the streaming can seemless blend into a stadia instance as a demo. Just have the streamer duplicated and the player exchanged. Including handover

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#154

Post by evervevdww221 »

akvadrako wrote: post #104
evervevdww221 wrote: post #47

I used to work on (the second generation) cloud gaming. It's very difficult to be profitable. Most people would think that the challenge is latency, streaming quality. But the real challenge is cost management. The cost can be easily as high as $2 per hour. At this rate, the monthly cost will buy you a decent computer or a console. It doesn't make sense. Plus, to make cloud gaming work, you have to own everything. Fr…

How does it make sense that a computer at home, with 5% utilization and retail power prices, can be less per hour than a computer with 50% utilization and wholesale power? Even if all you do is host single-user machines with retail games installed and some kind of imaging solution, it seems like it should pay off.

$2 per hour per machine is not a made-up number, just check how much Amazon charges for a GPU vm.

Again, we were a small company, we had to use other cloud providers. I don't know why amazon or alike are so expensive. We tried colocation too, not any cheaper to be honest.

Also, when buying a computer or a console, you don't pay by usage. you pay one time to own the hardware and the remaining 5 year usage is free, plus power bills no one really cares. 5% utilization times 5 year is still some decent hours, the cost is not necessarily more than a cloud vm.

For a cloud vm, you pay by usage. The more you use, the more you pay, the overall payment is not capped. Eventually the cost will surplus that of the hardware. And I'm saying "Eventually" is actually a month.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#156

Post by javajosh »

raxxorrax wrote: post #100
eternalny1 wrote: post #14

Stadia to me may not be ready yet, but I have no doubt in the future this is how we will be gaming. Once bandwidth is ubiquitous enough to stream 4K games at 60 FPS without having to INSTALL anything or even OWN A GAMING PC/CONSOLE, this is a no brainer. Why shell out for a new 2080TI card when you can just pay another month to Stadia and let them handle all the hardware to run Red Dead Redemption 2 at 4k 60 FPS? No…

I am not so sure. Downloading, updating, installing are certainly no issues if the bandwidth problem is solved. It just isn't really a hassle today for people with good connections. Maybe it will capture the casual market, but there are disadvantages to the platform. Just think of modding as an example. It might capture some console players, but I am not sure if they pull off even that, since the service is actually…

> Downloading, updating, installing are certainly no issues if the bandwidth problem is solved.

No. The problem's of proper system administration go far beyond issues of bandwidth. To apply a positive change you have to know about it, find it, download it, install it, and configure it. Not to mention it helps to understand the content of the patch, how it applies, and the social/technical context of the patch. And with Windows, this is in the presence of a large amount of proprietary software at the operating system, device driver, and application level.

So, no, good bandwidth does not solve the sysadmin problem.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#157

Post by tapoxi »

ArmandGrillet wrote: post #36

I want Stadia. I've read reviews yesterday and was amazed by the lack of a long term vision from the reviewers. If Google doesn't drop the ball (which is a huge if knowing the company's history), Stadia makes a lot of sense. I want to play Red Dead Redemption 2, the cheapest way to do that as I don't have a console nor an expensive computer is Stadia. And when I will want to play Cyberpunk 2077, Stadia will be the ch…

Consoles don’t require you use a TV, both the PS4 and Xbox One support remote play options over your LAN or the Internet.

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#158

Post by fulafel »

raxxorrax wrote: post #142
fulafel wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4k 60 fps bw requirement is just 35 Mbps, is there really catching up to do unless we're talking about mobile hotspots? Netflix 4k is 25 Mbps.

If everyone would use that bandwidth simultaneously, that can put huge loads on the net. Imagine you suddenly have 3 kids. You would need to tell your least favorite kid that it needs to play outside because your connection is too slow.

"Back in 2020 I sometimes had to choose between playing video games at 1080p and going to play outside because my parents didn't want to subscribe to the 100 M net connection, you kids today don't know how tough we had it." "Really gramps? I know 1080p looks terrible but how could they threaten you with the outside?" "Well the outdoors was less of a scorched hellscape back then. "

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#159

Post by ekianjo »

Someone1234 wrote: post #70
ekianjo wrote: post #49

I read the article, but it feels like "don't build anything until you are sure users want X". The problem is that nobody knows what users actually want, especially when you build something new. And the market will keep throwing ideas in several directions until one day, an idea sticks and becomes successful. Like, no gamer in pre-Wii times "wanted to play hours standing with a motion controller". Nintendo released th…

> I read the article, but it feels like "don't build anything until you are sure users want X". The article addresses that exact point: > I think the answer's obvious. Because they designed the product backward. They didn't think "what do people want?", or even go Apple and think "what COULD people want, if we showed them why they wanted it?". Your issue is largely addressed by their second Apple example. They're tal…

> rather than just being created to further that company's own interests

I find the Apple example unconvincing, especially for "recent Apple" stuff. Removing ports on their laptops, making some models' keyboard worse (most Apple users dislike the touchbar), making them unserviceable, forcing the phone users to buy expensive peripherals (Airpods...), bug-ridden OS updates, all of this point to a disdain towards their users rather than the opposite. Am I missing something?

Re: "Google Stadia is not a product that exists because people want it"

#160

Post by abdulmuhaimin »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #45
Causality1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bandwidth isn't the problem. Latency is. Multiple gigabits of bandwidth won't help you when it takes half a second for your character to start jumping after you hit the button.

With such latency we would have 0 online shooters. But we have a lot of them.

but thats different. the input is still local so the latency there is only the output. its much more noticable if the input has latency
Post reply on HN